Graphics

graphics do not make a game.

The CAN break a game, however they cannot make a game.

Games on the Wii are often slated as rubbish based only on what it looks like, however depsite not having photo realism I wouldnt say ssx blur, mario strikers (and dare i say it) super mario galaxy look bad (eye bleeding im refering to). They do not Look anywhere near as good as ps3 and xbox 360, but just because of this fact a lot of people render them as crap and pathetic??

To argue my point I want to bring up the Super Nes and specifically Ogre battle. Ogre battle overworld map was done in a god aweful mode 7 engine. It made anyones eyes bleed. but get past that, and you wont find a more indepth tatical rpg rts.

The wiis graphical limitations at the moment are being portrayed by the likes of EA, with harry potter 5 looking like a ps1 game no joke. In this case i agree with everyone thats says the graphcis broke the game, they are so bad it renders it horrific. However this is not Nintendos fault.

I peronally believe the jump to 'nextgen' graphics by ps3 and 360 was premature, as well as the graphics cards being made by nvidia. My reasoning? is the price... every console thats come out (with inflation taken into account) has been approxamatly 400 dollars (im talking AU, so im thinking 250-300 American). But sony and 360 console completely blow this with ps3 jumping to 1000 dollars for a console. not only this, but games now cost 20 dollars more then they used to, coming in at 120 dollars a game.

basically i think it was too early, im all for graphical improvement, but i think the jump to 1080p HD is a gen too fast, and that they should have let the technology age a bit so they could bring the consoles out at a resonable price. If the ps3 is 1000AU, what is the price for the ps4? 1200? with 130 dollar games? where does it stop?

To wrap up my rant which dribbles everywhere, I think the wii shouldnt be bashed for the crap lookign games, basht eh developers. Done right the graphics can be as eye pleasing as any. To say all wii games look complete rubbish is just dumb, when examples of mario Strikers, SMG and SSBB are around, because whilst they arnt in HD they arnt Eye bleeding like EA's HP5.

To be Honest, I think the Wii has the best graphics out of all the current consoles.XenoNinja

Aww that's so cute

At this point they do. Unless if you have a wiimote that is. See gaming is evolving, what would be doing if graphics were still like pong? Graphics changes the whole perspective of how people play the game. In an fps it is the most important because you will be running around shooting ugly blocks if it weren't for improved graphics.

Crysis wouldn't exactly be Crysis without the graphics. You see how many people gaze at the gameplay videos when the game is on very high? Just look at the interactivity, the atmosphere, the whole jungle setting. Better graphics make you aware of your existance in the game and actually makes you more into it and gets you to feel like you are that guy in the nano suit killing terrorists or whatever.

At this point they do. Unless if you have a wiimote that is. See gaming is evolving, what would be doing if graphics were still like pong? Graphics changes the whole perspective of how people play the game. In an fps it is the most important because you will be running around shooting ugly blocks if it weren't for improved graphics.

Crysis wouldn't exactly be Crysis without the graphics. You see how many people gaze at the gameplay videos when the game is on very high? Just look at the interactivity, the atmosphere, the whole jungle setting. Better graphics make you aware of your existance in the game and actually makes you more into it and gets you to feel like you are that guy in the nano suit killing terrorists or whatever.

Ilived

I refer you to Joystiq. "The good looks of Crytek's long-awaited PC shooter have undoubtedly razzle dazzled the gaming community, spurring hardcore PC fanatics to upgrade their rigs to the edge -- y'know, the bleeding kind. But does it play well?

Yes. Even if the game didn't look as good as it does, gamers would be talking about it simply for the incredible gameplay it has to offer."

graphics are always nice but i dont ask for super details. give me a game on par with counter strike source or bf2142 and i wont complain. maybe even worse, it's fine. as long as i can see good enough and the characters are not complete blocky.

Of course, i like crysis for its looks, but thats cause it really is a huge jump and though i cant access the full capabiities cause of my video card, the gameplay and physics draws me as well.

I was not wowed with Gears of War or halo 3's graphics for more than a few minutes. if they are truly good games, the gameplay would draw you away from the graphics a lot. until something truly breathtaking catches you for a short moment.

[QUOTE="Ilived"]

At this point they do. Unless if you have a wiimote that is. See gaming is evolving, what would be doing if graphics were still like pong? Graphics changes the whole perspective of how people play the game. In an fps it is the most important because you will be running around shooting ugly blocks if it weren't for improved graphics.

Crysis wouldn't exactly be Crysis without the graphics. You see how many people gaze at the gameplay videos when the game is on very high? Just look at the interactivity, the atmosphere, the whole jungle setting. Better graphics make you aware of your existance in the game and actually makes you more into it and gets you to feel like you are that guy in the nano suit killing terrorists or whatever.

Xerlaoth

I refer you to Joystiq. "The good looks of Crytek's long-awaited PC shooter have undoubtedly razzle dazzled the gaming community, spurring hardcore PC fanatics to upgrade their rigs to the edge -- y'know, the bleeding kind. But does it play well?

Yes. Even if the game didn't look as good as it does, gamers would be talking about it simply for the incredible gameplay it has to offer."

I'm sorry but that is completely bogus. I've played the Crysis beta and while it is fun, I wouldn't say it is amazing gameplay especially the standards so many hermits here claim to have for fps games. If they think Halo 3 is very generic then Crysis isn't far away from it either.

No, the game would never have been talked about as much and praised as much without the brilliant graphics. Even on high settings it looks better than a lot of 360/PS3 games. If a person with a not-so-good pc played Crysis on low settings he would enjoy it still, but if he went to his friend's house and played it on very high settings, his reaction would completely change and make him play the game a lot more.

Well they have paying jobs in the game journalism industry, and we're talking on a crappy troll forum. They're more credible than either of us.Xerlaoth

probably cause they have actually played the game and we're playing betas that arent actually filled with a lot of stuff. But about the guy before who said crysis looked generic. i havent played it yet but i feel that both halo and crysis are not generic. halo 3 is actually quite different. not many games give you shields like them and promote all this running and gunning and sometims sniping and stuff like that. not many games are like that cause a lot of fps strive for realism and you get kills in a few shots, though halo gameplay could get generic quick.

Crysis on the other hands seems like all these modes give you so much different tactics. but i havent played it so i wont comment just yet.

Im not saying graphics should not evolve cause they damn well should, im just saying that saying a game with lesser graphics autmoatically sucks is wrong, because graphics cannot make a game good.

If the graphics are 'ok' and the execution is great then its a great game. if the graphics are superb and the execution is bad then its a bad game? this shows how graphics cannot make a game but execution can

To be Honest, I think the Wii has the best graphics out of all the current consoles.XenoNinja

agree. i personally think it had the best version of live.

Graphics don't help with making games better too much anymore. I mean for all the power that the 360/PS3 have, except for the graphics, the gameplay could have been done last gen. Very few games actually take advantage of the more powerful hardware. The havoks physics engine can be and is done on Wii and as for A.I, technically yes, more power should mean better a.i, but it depends more on the programmer than the power and except for a few games it's not too noticable. More enemies on screen is an ability that is taken advantage of in very few games and even fewer use the ability to do that wisely. All in all, graphics can make the game better, but not as much as it did last gen. It seems to me that not many developers are not taking advantage of the power of the systems except for the graphics.cobrax80

Youwroteexactlywhatiwantedtosay,butbetter:P